Housing Authority v. Charter Oak Terrace/Rice Heights Health Center, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD v. CHARTER OAK TERRACE/RICE HEIGHTS HEALTH CENTER, INC. (AC 23589) West, DiPentima and Mihalakos, Js. Argued October 21, 2003 Officially released September 28, 2004 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Hon. William C. Bieluch, judge trial referee) Rodger C. Boe, for the appellant (defendant). Rudolph P. Arnold, for the appellee (plaintiff). Opinion PER CURIAM. This case was argued on October 21, 2003, and an opinion was published setting forth the relevant facts and the majority of the procedural history. See Housing Authority v. Charter Oak Terrace/ Rice Heights Health Center, Inc., 82 Conn. App. 18, 842 A.2d 601 (2004). In that opinion, we agreed with the defendant on its first claim as to the improper deduction of the construction contribution from the fair market value of the leasehold, and on the second claim, we remanded the case for an articulation of the court s basis for its valuation of the leasehold. We retained jurisdiction over the appeal. The court filed its articulation and rectification of judgment on April 30, 2004. In its articulation, the court determined that the value of the unexpired leasehold for fourteen years was $440,047, rounded to $440,000. The court s articulated value disposed of the defendant s second claim on appeal. In accordance with our decision on the first claim, the court then rendered judgment for the defendant in the amount of $440,000, less the $231,5001 previously paid [by the defendant] for the leasehold interest taken by the [plaintiff], or an excess of $208,500, with interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum on such excess from the date of the taking on August 14, 2000, to the date of the payment, together with costs and a reasonable appraisal fee of $2550. On May 18, 2004, the plaintiff filed a motion to correct the articulation and rectification. On May 28, 2004, the court denied the motion to correct. The plaintiff filed neither a motion for review nor an appeal from that judgment. Because the court took into account our prior determination as to the first claim in its judgment on the motion for articulation-rectification, no further remand is necessary. The judgment as stated in the trial court s articulation filed on April 30, 2004, is affirmed. 1 It is clear from the record in this case that the moving expenses of $18,500 account for the difference between the $250,000 deposit and the $231,500 and were not at issue in this appeal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
